What Sea did the Israelites Cross During the Exodus?
The Israelites’ crossing of the Red Sea is one of the most spectacular and pivotal
events in the Bible. The Red Sea is the body of water that separates the East African coast
from the Arabian sub-continent. At its northern end, the Red Sea is divided between two gulfs
flanking the Sinai peninsula – the Gulf of Suez in the west and the Gulf of Aqaba in the east.
For many centuries, Bible scholars and lay believers have speculated
where along this vast expanse of water that the Exodus crossing took place.
In more recent times though, there has been a rise in speculation that the Exodus crossing
did not take place in the Red Sea at all, but rather in a, “sea of reeds,” usually
interpreted to mean an inland lake somewhere along the northeast border of ancient Egypt.
This topic has proven to be quite volatile,
with passionate defenses made by champions of both interpretations. With the larger academic
community remaining steadfast in their skepticism of the events of the Exodus,
a proper understanding of what the Bible is communicating about where the Israelites crossed
a body of water to secure their flight from the oppression of the Egyptians is fundamental to
both a sound defense of scripture as well as any future discoveries that may take place.
First, the term that historically has been translated as, “Red Sea,”
is יַם ס֑וּף (yam suph). יַם means, “sea.” However, ס֑וּף does not mean, “red.”
(The Hebrew word for, “red,” is אָדוֹם.) ס֑וּף is typically understood to mean, “reed.”
Part of the reason for this is that the first occurrence of ס֑וּף in the Bible is in
Exodus 2:3 where the infant Moses is placed בַּסּ֖וּף – “in the reeds,” of the Nile.
If you watched my video on unicorns in the Bible, you’ll recall that I talked
about cognate words – words that are borrowed from another related language.
With the development of Egyptology over the last 200 years, many scholars have come to
believe the Hebrew word ס֑וּף is a cognate word, deriving from the ancient Egyptian word twf(y),
which also means, “reed.” The argument then follows that since the original Egyptian
word meant, “reed,” that the same definition should also be applied to the Hebrew ס֑וּף.
Given that the Red Sea, whether the sea proper or either of the gulfs,
are not particularly, “reedy,” those who emphasize the Egyptian context of twf(y) believe it is more
appropriate to identify the יַם ס֑וּף with one of the inland lakes along Egypt’s border
with Sinai. (Or, perhaps an ancient lagoon that existed along the Mediterranean coast.)
But if יַם ס֑וּף does not mean, “Red Sea,” why has this been the traditional translation?
When the Old Testament was translated into Greek,
the translators used the phrase, “ἐρυθρὰ θάλασσα,” to translate יַם ס֑וּף. “ἐρυθρὰ θάλασσα,” means,
“Red Sea,” so the Greek is the source of the traditional translation.
A number of people have argued that this is simply a mistranslation on the part of the
Greek translators that has managed to stick with the passage of time. However, there are some other
portions of the Biblical text that need to be considered before jumping to this conclusion.
The Bible provides a geographical understanding of יַם ס֑וּף in 1 Kings 9:26:
“King Solomon also built a fleet of ships in Ezion-geber, which is near Eloth on the
shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom.” First, the phrase, “Red Sea,” in this verse
is the same יַם ס֑וּף that occurs across the rest of scripture. This is undisputed. Second,
there are two landmarks the Bible gives that help locate יַם ס֑וּף: the cities of Ezion–Geber
and Eloth. These are port cities along the northern coast of the Gulf of Aqaba – the
eastern branch of the Red Sea. The Gulf of Aqaba was the southern border of ancient Edom,
as well as the Israelite kingdom under the united monarchy of Saul, David and Solomon.
Again, these locations are also undisputed.
Further, Exodus 23:31 establishes יַם ס֑וּף as a border for the kingdom of Israel.
The, “Sea of the Philistines,” is the Mediterranean. Thus, the only other
body of water that bordered Israel was the Gulf of Aqaba along its southern terminus.
Before we simply say that the designation of יַם ס֑וּף as, “Red Sea,” is a mistranslation,
we must consider the significance of the fact that the only places in the Bible that provide detailed
geographical contexts for יַם ס֑וּף are, actually, in reference to a portion of the Red Sea.
Beyond this, there are additional geographical clues the Bible gives us
as to the location of יַם ס֑וּף.
Remember that after Moses fled from Egypt,
he lived with the family of his father-in-law Jethro in Midian. It was during his stay in Midian
that Moses encountered the Angel of the Lord in the burning bush on Mount Sinai. The location
of ancient Midian is widely thought to have been along the western coast of the Arabian peninsula.
This would mean that the most likely location of Mount Sinai is also somewhere in this area. The
Apostle Paul confirms as much when he said in Galatians 4:25 that Mount Sinai is in Arabia.
(To be fair, the ancient understanding of, “Arabia,” should not be confused with the
modern borders of Saudi Arabia. However, given the weight of the entire Biblical testimony,
a location for Mount Sinai in modern Saudi Arabia appears the most probable.)
Thus, if Mount Sinai is somewhere along the western coast of the Arabian peninsula,
the nearest, “sea,” is the Gulf of Aqaba – especially the nearest sea which would have
provided a natural barrier for the Israelites to be protected from any harassment by the Egyptians.
These observations are the fuel for the debate over the location of sea of the Exodus. Generally
speaking, Egyptologists maintain that the יַם ס֑וּף must be a marshy inland lake on the
basis of the etymology of the ancient Egyptian word twf(y) for the Hebrew ס֑וּף as, “reed.”
On the other hand, Bible scholars maintain that יַם ס֑וּף must be understood according to the
Biblical testimony of this body of water being identified as the Gulf of Aqaba. So, who’s right?
As I’ve said in my video on the sojourn of Israel in Egypt, there are good,
learned, believing men and women who represent both sides of this discussion,
so I don’t expect my opinion to be conclusive.
As previously though also, I won’t leave you with this lame, politically-correct answer.
With consideration to those Egyptologists and other scholars who favor an inland lakes
location for יַם ס֑וּף, they do acknowledge that the location for this body of water described in
1 Kings 9:26 is the Gulf of Aqaba. But, if they can recognize this, why do they still argue for
a different location as the place of the Exodus crossing? I believe the answer to this is that
many of these scholars are holding to an erroneous assumption about how the Bible uses יַם ס֑וּף.
Consider the words of James Hoffmeier, a believing Egyptologist who holds to an inland crossing site:
“It is true that (yam suph) refers not only to the sea crossed by the Israelites during the
Exodus from Egypt, but also to the Gulf of Aqaba… (Yam Suph) is used in Hebrew for the sea through
which the Israelites passed (Ex. 13:18, 15:4; Josh. 24:6), the Gulf of Suez (Num. 33:10-11) and
the Gulf of Aqaba (Ex. 23:31; Deut. 1:40, 2:1; 1 Kings 9:26).” (Israel in Egypt, Pg. 205-206).
I have a lot of respect for professor Hoffmeier and I am very thankful for his work.
However, I believe his statement begs the question,
“how do we know that יַם ס֑וּף is being used in reference to multiple bodies of water?”
The only verses among all of those listed here that provide an exact location of
יַם ס֑וּף are 1 Kings 9:26 and Exodus 23:31. To his credit, Deuteronomy 1-2 do strongly infer
that יַם ס֑וּף is the Gulf of Aqaba (given that these references are post-Exodus),
but there is nothing in Numbers 33:10-11 to suggest that this reference to יַם ס֑וּף is
actually to the Gulf of Suez. Further, there isn’t anything to suggest that the references
in Exodus 13:18, 15:4 and Joshua 24:6 are to be understood as yet another body of water.
The only way one would come to this conclusion is if they approached the text with these ideas
already assumed. If we rely solely on the text, we read all of these references to יַם ס֑וּף as
the Gulf of Aqaba, and there is nothing present in the text that would contradict this understanding.
I believe this is the fatal flaw of the, “sea of reeds,” interpretation;
it forces the reader to assume an Egyptian understanding of words rather than a Hebrew one.
I am not arguing that ס֑וּף is not derived from twf(y) or that either word is used in reference
to reeds or other types of vegetation. However, what I am arguing is that it is inappropriate to
restrict the semantic domain of the Hebrew ס֑וּף to meaning strictly, “reeds,” on the
basis of how the ancient Egyptians used the word twf(y). The reason it is inappropriate
is because this does not allow the Biblical authors to use ס֑וּף in the ways that they do.
While ס֑וּף is used in Exodus 2:3 to describe the hiding place of
baby Moses among the reeds of the Nile, to fully grasp the Bible’s use of this word,
we must consider other passages that utilize the ס֑וּף word family.
The Hebrew language is organized around word families. A given root will be the
base for subsequent noun and verb forms. Certain words within a given family will have particular
definitions, but these definitions are tied to the generic definition found in the root.
With this understanding, we can look at other passages of scripture wherein
a word from the ס֑וּף family is used and see how the authors use this word to communicate.
The verbal form of ס֑וּף is found in Esther 9:28, Psalm 73:19, Isaiah 66:17, Jeremiah 8:13 and Amos
3:15. Additionally, the Aramaic cognate of ס֑וּף is found in Daniel 2:44 and 4:33.
In all of these passages, the verbal form of ס֑וּף is used to communicate the end,
fulfillment, consumption or destruction of the object in question. For this reason,
the basic definition of the verbal form of ס֑וּף is, “to come to an end; to cease.”
With respect to the noun forms, there is a related form, סוֹף, which occurs as both a
Hebrew word (2 Chronicles 20:16; Ecclesiastes 3:11, 7:2, 12:13; Joel 2:20) and an Aramaic
cognate (Daniel 4:11, 22 6:26, 7:26, 28). These verses utilize סוֹף to describe an
end – either a physical or temporal boundary or limit.
Another noun within the ס֑וּף family, סוּפָה, is used to describe a storm or whirlwind; the
implication here being that the storm is the agent of destruction (end) of the object in question.
Returning to Exodus 2:3 with the greater context of the ס֑וּף family in mind, an understanding put
forth by some linguists is that ס֑וּף refers to reeds insofar as the reeds are present at
the boundary (i.e. end) of the river, along its bank. In other words, the emphasis of ס֑וּף is
not so much on the reed itself, rather that it is an object that marks the end of the river.
If this understanding is accurate, then a more appropriate translation of the phrase
יַם ס֑וּף would be, “sea of the end.” “sea of destruction,” or, “sea of the boundary.”
Any of these definitions fits well with the Biblical narrative. “Sea of the end,” or, “sea of
destruction,” accords with the end and destruction of the Egyptian army when the water drowned them.
There is no need to imply a marshy, inland lake in this case, which leaves the Gulf of Aqaba as a
candidate for the יַם ס֑וּף the Israelites crossed to freedom. “Sea of the boundary,” would imply יַם
ס֑וּף as the southern boundary of the kingdom of Israel – the space occupied by the Gulf of Aqaba.
It is likely that this understanding lies behind why the Greek translators of the Old Testament
choose to render יַם ס֑וּף as ἐρυθρὰ
θάλασσα – not because they were attempting to literally translate יַם ס֑וּף, but because
they were attempting place the body of water that יַם ס֑וּף was in reference to.
This is why I disagree with the notion that יַם ס֑וּף implies a marshy inland
lake somewhere in the north-east region of Egypt. To define יַם ס֑וּף in this way
assumes a native Egyptian reference rather a Biblical Hebrew reference. Again, I’m not
disputing that the Egyptian p3 twf(y) means, “sea of reeds,” or that it has a cognate relationship
to יַם ס֑וּף. What I am disputing though is the idea that the Egyptian meaning must be the strict
understanding of the Hebrew word, rather than allowing Hebrew to define its own semantic domain
for ס֑וּף. When the Hebrews incorporated ס֑וּף into their vocabulary, the reference to, “reeds,”
found in the Egyptian context served as the basis for the word to be used in reference to, “ends,”
or, “boundaries,” of physical & temporal objects. (“Reeds,” being a natural boundary marker.)
Some, however, point to Exodus 10:19
as proof that יַם ס֑וּף must, at least one once, be referring to a local body of water
near Egypt. In reference to the eight plague – the plague of locusts – the Bible says:
“And the LORD changed the wind to a very strong west wind that carried
off the locusts and blew them into the יַם ס֑וּף (Red Sea).”
The charge is that the, “west wind,” that carried the locusts, “into the יַם ס֑וּף,” is coming
from the wrong direction to carry them to the Gulf of Aqaba, which is to the east of Egypt.
Therefore, if there is a יַם ס֑וּף to the west of Egypt,
this is proof the phrase is being used in reference to multiple bodies of water. As
a result, this ambiguity is then carried forward to reenforce a local inland lakes crossing site.
As strong as this case appears to be, the Hebrew of Exodus 10:19 gives us clarity.
וַיַּהֲפֹ֨ךְ יְהוָ֤ה רֽוּחַ־יָם֙ חָזָ֣ק מְאֹ֔ד וַיִּשָּׂא֙ אֶת־הָ֣אַרְבֶּ֔ה
וַיִּתְקָעֵ֖הוּ יָ֣מָּה סּ֑וּף לֹ֤א נִשְׁאַר֙ אַרְבֶּ֣ה אֶחָ֔ד בְּכֹ֖ל גְּב֥וּל מִצְרָֽיִם
The phrase that is traditionally translated as, “west wind,” is רֽוּחַ־יָם֙. You’ll notice that
the word rendered, “west,” is יַם, the word for, “sea.” The semantic domain for the יַם word family
includes both references to the sea and to a westerly direction. The reason for this is because
the most prominent sea in the Biblical world was the Mediterranean, which provided the western
border of Canaan (and later Israel). Thus, יַם can be spoken of either in reference to something
in the west or a sea. A legitimate alternative translation of Exodus 10:19 is, “a very strong
wind from the sea,” (lit. “sea wind”). So, how do we know which interpretation is correct?
The answer is context. The first uses of יַם in reference to, “west,” are found in Genesis
12:8 & 13:4 – during Abraham’s time in Canaan (bordered on the west by the Mediterranean Sea).
However, Exodus 10:19 is set in Egypt, not Canaan. The Mediterranean represents Egypt’s
northern border; there is no body of water that borders Egypt to the west (either today or in
Biblical times). For this reason, I believe it is more appropriate to translate Exodus 10:19
as, “…a strong wind from the sea,” rather than, “…a strong westerly wind.” Substance
to this interpretation is found in the Septuagint’s rendering of this verse:
“And the Lord brought in the opposite direction a strong wind from the sea, and took up the locusts
and cast them into the Red Sea, and there was not one locust left in all the land of Egypt.”
Further, the Hebrew doesn’t necessitate the idea that the locusts were actually blown,
“into the יַם ס֑וּף.” The reason for this is that the preposition for,
“to/into,” is not present in the text. All the Hebrew says is, “וַיִּתְקָעֵ֖הוּ יָ֣מָּה סּ֑וּף,”
(and blew them yam suph). It could be that this choice of words means the locusts were
drowned in the יַם ס֑וּף, but it is equally plausible, if not more so,
that this phrase means only in the direction of the יַם ס֑וּף.
Here, then, is a proposed translation of Exodus 10:19:
“And the LORD turned a very strong wind from the sea
and took away the locusts and blew them (toward/in the direction of) the יַם ס֑וּף.”
If this is the proper reading of the verse, then it does not pose any problems to understanding
that יַם ס֑וּף refers exclusively to the Gulf of Aqaba. In addition,
as previously stated, there was no body of water to the west of Egypt.
Thus the reading of יַם as, “west,” does not make sense on geographical grounds either.
With all of this being said, I believe that only body of water we should consider as the crossing
site of the Exodus is the Gulf of Aqaba. It is the only body of water that the Bible specifically
identifies by geography in reference to יַם ס֑וּף. All other references to יַם ס֑וּף must
be subject to the clear identification of the Gulf of Aqaba as the sea of יַם ס֑וּף.
For further reading on this subject, I recommend,
“Israel in Egypt,” by James Hoffmeier and, “The Lost Sea of the Exodus,” by Glen Fritz.
You will find links to each of these books in the description.